By Scott McCord, March 4, 2020
In the March 3rd publication of the Voice there is an article about a petition to not extend our CEO’s contract before the new Board is seated.
Whether you like or dislike our CEO, 551 signatures on a petition is hardly a majority of the voting population of HSV. For a petition to be meaningful and representative of the wishes of the majority of our community it needs a lot more than 2% of the owners signing the petition. The people supporting this petition (2%) are some of the same people that have purported their wishes represent the majority of our community.
Two(2) percent is not a representation of a majority.
An employees performance should be measured by evaluating the achievement( or lack of) of their goals. Goals established and documented by our Board.
Any person with a job would hope that their employer would determine their future employment be based on whether they have or have not fulfilled their documented goals. It should not be based on a petition with 551 signatures representing only 2% of the ~23,000 total property owners.
Is this a representation of the wish of the majority? Hardly the case. Two(2)% is not representative of a majority.
Should 2% dictate to our current Board the manner in which they handle matters of this level of importance?
How would you answer, if it was you that was being targeted, especially if you have achieved the majority of your documented goals.
The 551 signatures on the petition does not represent a majority of our property owners. It represents 2% of the property owners.
The Board should recognize there is a petition for their consideration, and should decide if 2% of the owners should cause them to alter the normal contract renewal process. They( the Board of Directors) are the people we elected to represent the wishes of the majority of the property owners of Hot Springs Village.
I trust the Board to give the petition the consideration it deserves.
Scott McCord
***
Brand New Yes/No/I don’t care survey- This is not a link. You can take the survey below without leaving the article.
Editor’s note: This article is unedited except for the addition of this note, a byline at the top of the article, and three hyperlinks. Click here to view the petition for Non-extension of the CEO’s Contract. We have also added our own BRAND NEW petition so we can see the percentages of yes and no.
We would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. Thank you for keeping the comments civil and not like they are on Nextdoor.
Please consider bookmarking this site so you do not miss any updates. Thank you.
Click here to visit our Private Facebook Group
Andy Kramek
03/04/2020 — 10:28 am
It will be interesting to see how many people sign this petition now that it has been publicized in the Vilalge Voice.
HSVP C
03/04/2020 — 10:32 am
Yes, more will now sign.
Scott
03/05/2020 — 9:20 am
It will still not be meaningful.
HSVP C
03/04/2020 — 10:32 am
Thank you for your input, Scott.
Scott, the survey in question, “Do not extend Nalley contract, at this time!” is in no way indicative of the number of Property Owners who do not wish to extend the CEO’s contract.
Whereas, the Proposed Declarations Amendment Vote is. Property Owners overwhelming voted down all of the CEO’s/POA Board’s requested changes. That alone shows us where Property Owners stand on this issue.
From our experience with online surveys, it is very difficult to get people to participate in these surveys. Many people don’t want their names associated with surveys or on-line postings for fear of retribution. Retribution from management has happened.
POA management also knows there is not an overwhelming response to surveys. Just look at the results of their surveys.
Thank you.
Cheryl Dowden
Kurtis Sutley
03/04/2020 — 10:37 am
Seriously, Scott, you’re smart enough to know that a petition percentage is not representative of the population. Why don’t you start a petition to continue with the CEO’s contract and see haw far you get? The fact that 2% are in favor of the petition does not infer anything about how many oppose the petition or support the CEO. You really need to educate yourself on statistical analysis.
Vicki Husted
03/04/2020 — 10:43 pm
You’re right, Kurtis Sutley, that to demonstrate what he views as lack of consensus throughout the Village property owners, he should create his own petition and compare the number of signatures he gets.
Currently, the petition to NOT extend the contract at this time has 652 signatures.
Scott
03/05/2020 — 9:19 am
I’ll have my people contact your people.
Scott
03/05/2020 — 9:06 am
Come on Kurtis, don’t listen to everything you hear at home.
Jenny P
03/04/2020 — 10:46 am
If I were a Board Member, and this petition was presented to me, I would surely take it seriously.
The fact that 551 Members took the time to express their concerns, although not a majority, still requires consideration.
This would lead me to investigate more thoroughly, whether or not, the complaints against the CEO are justified.
In this case, most of us know, that Lesley represents the “problems” and wide spread dissension in the Village.
Regardless, any competent BOD would take action to find the truth and then act on it.
Scott
03/05/2020 — 9:07 am
I trust the Board will give it the consideration it deserves.
Lloyd Sherman
03/04/2020 — 10:47 am
Counterpoint – While it is one of the Board’s responsibilities to review and renew (as necessary) the contract, why is it necessary for it to be done in an off-contract year? Because that is the way it has always been done? Not acceptable and especially so during this contract period. First, there is no need to do so; there is a full year left on the contract. Second, four (4) new board members are being elected (4 of 7) to represent the property owners. Several of these seats are for multiple years. There will also be two (2) board members left who have two years left. So given there is no need to actually extend this contract at this time and the newly elected board members will have to live with an outgoing Board decision, the tradition (if there is one) should be to allow the four and the three remaining to make that decision after the new board is seated. For several years now there has been much dissatisfaction with March and April surprises and regardless of the percent of people who signed a petition, these situations can be approached with good old common sense.
George
03/04/2020 — 12:34 pm
Good points Llyod.
In the real world, you would only review a contract early if you had an exceptional talent you were afraid to loose or there were exceptional results and flawless execution of major projects.
Neither of these are happening in the case of this person.
As far as the overall subject of this post…
78% of the RESIDENT votes in the last BOD election were for candidates that were running to change the direction of HSV. They were clear in their statements at that time.
50% went to the 3 who were elected, Diana, Tormey and Dick.
28% went to Sherman, Rust, Denger and Street.
How can anyone even suggest there is not a strong desire to change the existing direction that the board has been going and the ceo is incompetently executing.
Scott
03/05/2020 — 9:09 am
Thank you for your willingness to serve
Vicky Didion
03/04/2020 — 11:01 am
And Scott, we all know you fully support the CEO! The NO vote was not a minority AND as well as voting down the changes she wanted was also a vote of NO CONFIDENCE in her, whether she wants to acknowledge that and we all know she doesn’t, it stands. The petition would have many more signatures if we were allowed to go door to door.
We the people, of HSV are NOT the minority. Just out and about meeting new people, if the subject of the CEO comes up, I personally have not met 1 person that stands by her and I hear this from others as well. The CEO of HSV is not a liked person, we have no confidence in her that she will do what’s in the best interest of the Village and we do not want her contract extended.
Scott
03/05/2020 — 9:14 am
You don’t know anything about me or who I support. Sometimes it’s better to not make statements about things you know nothing about.
You won’t be saying much if you try this practice.
Vicky Didion
03/05/2020 — 10:07 am
Yes I do know that you are good buddies with the CEO as do most people around here.
Kirk Denger
03/06/2020 — 6:57 pm
Scott McNaily, well put.
George Phillis
03/11/2020 — 2:14 pm
It seems pretty clear to me who Mr. McCord supports. Just as it is clear I do not support the CEO. Why is it so difficult for Mr. McCord to admit he supports the CEO? The sad situation here in the Village lies directly in the lap of the CEO and the BOD members who have been in lock step with the CEO. There’s always been some discourse in the Village….as it is almost in any organization. However not at the level it’s been since the self appointed CEO took the throne. The non-transparency which has been a burr under the saddle for the Villagers for last few years has never been truly resolved by management. In fact it’s as bad as it has always been with this one and only CEO. It’s like pulling teeth to obtain information from the POA….despite a court order! Whenever someone asks for information the first question is “Why do you want to know?” It’s not any of their business and I didn’t see that requirement in the court order. Time for a change.
Moe
03/04/2020 — 11:07 am
No matter what happens this person has got to leave…and quit saying you can’t fire her. You can always simply cancel the position and drop its funding…and reassign the person to other tasks.
There is always a way…I am sick and tired of people saying there is nothing we can do.
There is plenty we can do.
The changes must come and they must come now…or we are finished.
Linda
03/04/2020 — 11:59 am
I concur
George
03/04/2020 — 12:12 pm
Well said Moe.
Restructuring – done all the time in organizations.
Well within the Boards responsibilities to set the direction.
Will she react to it, sure. And we can listen to her like she has listened to the POA members.
Scott
03/04/2020 — 7:49 pm
Nobody said you have no recourse. As you say there is always a way to achieve an outcome you expect. It’s just a question of time and/or money.
May the decisions be wise, whatever they are determined to be.
I have no doubt the new Board will do what they agree is best for HSV.
Bernard
03/08/2020 — 3:26 pm
And Scott, Lesley will be history after the next election, it just depends on how she will depart and with how much money in her pocket.
Scott
03/05/2020 — 9:16 am
Moe, How is Curly doing. I miss seeing you guys
George Phillis
03/11/2020 — 1:54 pm
I totally agree with you Moe. You rid the body of any disease or ailment that is killing it…..same for other situations. The current management style is killing the Village. It’s time.
Kirk Denger
03/04/2020 — 11:12 am
Renewed or not makes no difference. April 15th 2020 the CEO will either resign or be removed.
Randy S.
03/04/2020 — 1:07 pm
Kirk! You just got my vote!
VOTE LTD & Kirk!
It’s our only path to restoring our Village to the quiet, peaceful, active adult lifestyle, retirement community!
Got my ballot today. Could not check the boxes for LTD & Kirk fast enough! Made my day to cast ALL four of my votes for the betterment of HSV!
Looking forward to some positive changes in the near future.
The dismissal of Lesley Nalley would make my year!
Good luck to all of us!
Kirk Denger
03/04/2020 — 3:00 pm
1,2,3 year terms, 3 or 4 anti-CMP directors, nothing else matters. We will still have the 4 to 3 majority which is enough to accomplish the will of the majority of Property Owner voters.
Bernard
03/08/2020 — 3:30 pm
Gad, what a divisive comment you just made Kirk, and that is the problem which has engulfed our community since Nally came ‘on board’. SHE is the problem, along with folks such as yourself and Scott. And yes, Scott, we do know you.
Kirk Denger
03/08/2020 — 6:51 pm
Bernard, we are all folks. Allow yourself to back up and regroup your thoughts.
HSVP C
03/06/2020 — 7:58 am
Kirk may be making promises he cannot possibly keep.
steve bylow
03/06/2020 — 7:50 am
Kirk – I guess I’ll be a contrarian. I don’t expect new Board members to make a promise to fire someone on a specific date.
I do expect LTD to layout a new vision with governance and appropriate structure and then take appropriate action when needed.
Steve
Kirk Denger
03/06/2020 — 8:27 pm
bylow, look for the word “promise”, you will not find it in my statement.
With your personal reputation of having strong business acumen, you can’t blame the CEO for the agreement she negotiated and you don’t feel it is appropriate to fire folks who are doing what their boss wants, but our HSV existing governance model for fifty years requires adherence to our governing documents. since it is important to limit the data points to three, L,T&D is your limit. I am not limited to your business acumen.
steve bylow
03/12/2020 — 11:39 am
Kirk –
You are correct – you did not say “promise” so I’ll rephrase my comment; “I question your judgment making the statement that on a specific date the CEO will either resign or be removed”.
Thanks for clarifying you feel your comment was appropriate.
I guess we can leave it at: “we agree to disagree”.
Thanks
Steve
Minn Daly
03/04/2020 — 11:15 am
Not only should CEO contract not be renewed, the entire POA needs restructuring. Voteing LTD! Minn Daly
Gina Dutchik
03/04/2020 — 11:26 am
Scott, can you or someone else please list these goals you mentioned, and exactly how they were fulfilled.
Myra Sanders
03/04/2020 — 11:33 am
Scott, you seem to be outnumbered here for sure. No other supportive comments for your CEO. I believe the writing is on the wall. It has certainly taken us a while but I believe most villagers have realized that our CEO has created a mess which has sealed her fate.
Ernie Armentrout
03/04/2020 — 11:35 am
I believe that with all BOD’s set and positioned after the election, will have more feedback from HSV home owners, and most likely can acquire a more accurate feedback as to the disposition of the contract with the CEO. Signing a petition by way of social media may not reflect accurately, as some may not even subscribe or just ignore…..heck, some posts and opinions posted are arbitrarily removed….
The BOD has the ability to gather, most likely more accurately, how the majority of the property owners feel about how this administration has performed or has not performed. As a side note, approximately 14000 property owners have more local knowledge as to how the administration is affecting them directly. Conversely, the other 9000 property owners, who are not living here, are not directly impacted by what transpires here in the village, and are removed from the trials and tribulations of HSV.
We should exercise the system as designed, have the Directors vote in accordance with how the majority of the home owners have expressed their concerns. Or send ballots out to the property owners, simplest most accurate.
Melinda Alvord
03/04/2020 — 11:48 am
Scott states that “most of the CEOs goals have been met”. The biggest one however is to repair the property owners distrust, and sadly that goal has not been met. I would hope the board considers that fact above all else. It’s wider and deeper than its ever been.
George
03/04/2020 — 12:59 pm
“Distrust” is the tip of the iceberg.
We never see any communication from this “leader” of our organization. She should be communicating directly to the members regularly about the accomplishments and plans, but we all understand why this does not happen. Anytime she communicates there is a tremendous negative response via websites, letters and conversations.
This should not be acceptable to the board and certainly not to our residents.
Her participation in Board Meetings is required and poor, at best.
Linda
03/04/2020 — 12:00 pm
Her goals are hardly measurable
D. Hamilton
03/04/2020 — 12:16 pm
I never saw the petition and only heard of it in the Voice. Where was it circulated and for how long?
HSVP C
03/04/2020 — 12:26 pm
It was circulated on Facebook and Nextdoor.
Bernard
03/08/2020 — 3:41 pm
If that is the only place it was to be found, there is little doubt as to why it has but several hundred signatures. A great many people do not ‘social media’, particularly FB
Vicki Husted
03/05/2020 — 11:57 am
D. Hamilton03/04/2020 — 12:16 pm
The petition is still active, and if you wish, you can sign it at this link:
https://www.change.org/p/hot-spring-village-property-owners-do-not-extend-nalley-contract?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=custom_url&recruited_by_id=c60260f0-3bdc-11ea-8479-b54c44e7abcd&fbclid=IwAR0o3QmKYSapVCTM0z_YGXtJUJ-a1vqjZH0gAa9HFGRdvqJqXgnF5biIKRk
Melinda Noble
03/04/2020 — 12:30 pm
Scott: you get 552 people to sign a petition to keep Lesley and then you can talk until then you are just blowing smoke.
Moe
03/04/2020 — 12:33 pm
Exactly. This guy is really out there.
Tom Blakeman
03/04/2020 — 1:48 pm
The issue of our CEO contract renewal, petition or no petition, 552 signatures or 5,552 signatures, is sadly out of our hands. More than likely the current Board will go ahead and renew the contract before March 31 for another 2-year term – or maybe even longer. They don’t have to, but they will.
Why, you ask? Why would they not listen? Simple. The majority of the current board want it that way. And, this is how it has been since before Twiggs. This whole mess – the CEO contract, the fancy titles, the CMP, the bloated senior staff, the non-transparency – is their legacy and they are proud of it. Or, perhaps they are just too weak or ashamed to recognize their failures and own up to it.
But it is really our fault. Over the years we have mostly elected people to the Board who were either part of, or were won over by, a certain group of Villagers – the ‘Cadre’- who think they know what’s best for the rest of us. So, as long as the ‘Cadre’ are in control, things are not going to change.
Our only hope is the upcoming election. We must bring in new people who think and believe like the real majority of Villagers – and won’t somehow be lured over to the dark side of the ‘Cadre’. Vote LTD !
Kilroy
03/04/2020 — 2:23 pm
What is so disturbing to me is that Scott doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. What a limited circle he hangs out with.
Yes, Lesley has friends. Lesley has friends in high places. Lesley is playing and manipulating her circle of friends and they eat out of her hands. They will go to the wall for her. They, in turn believe their hyperbole. It’s all fake and exaggerated power.
Scott, when you see this small house of cards come down, you better believe it can ONLY be done by a majority.
Thinking it’s just a bunch of cranky old people is a gross misjudgment on the part of this regime and yourself.
We are bigger than a breadbox. How big? When you find out get on board.
Moe
03/04/2020 — 4:53 pm
This Scott fellow seems to be fixated on his math abilities and the “2 percent”.
I suggest he spend his time reading the entire CMP and then getting back to us on all the components of it he thinks will work in HSV and that can be implemented in HSV.
Try his math skills at computing how much of it we can do while broke…and broke because we are overpaying for administrative people who have not accomplished a single recommendation within that boiler-plated mess of a report.
I further suggest he research the firm that provided the report and get back to us on the success they have had “selling” this nonsense to other communities.
Then he can research the return for our money on all the marketing funds that have been expended since the “ceo” took charge. I believe it will work out to about $12,346 per new resident. So, it will only take 181 months of POA dues to recoup that money. Outstanding effort and great success.
We eagerly await your report.
By the way, far more than 2% of us think this whole CMP is the silliest, craziest, most insane wasteful and divisive thing ever foisted on HSV and we are sick of it! Sick do you hear me??
Get your little calculator out and get back to us ASAP.
MR is memory recall, by the way….
scott
03/05/2020 — 9:42 am
Moe,
I get it, you are sick. Sorry, I hope you get better.
Bernard
03/08/2020 — 3:39 pm
Scott, why do you want to get personal with these folks. All are just expression opinion.
Patrick T. McCarthy
03/05/2020 — 8:44 am
Tom Blakeman has it right. They pulled stuff last year and likely will again. It is totally unethical but that seems to be their stock and trade.
Given the state of disdain for the Board and POA in the Village they should quietly end their term and leave. Sadly, I suspect they will choose to do further damage on the way out. What the payoff is for them I surely don’t know.
What I see is that, whether they pull some shenanigans at the end or not, we have a big mess to clean up. I am just anxious to vote, hopefully get LTD on the Board with Diana and then start rebuilding trust with a Board that wants to be connected to the owners. We are better than where the last 3 or 4 Boards have taken us!
Vicky Didion
03/05/2020 — 10:13 am
Yes I do know that you are good buddies with the CEO as do most people around here.
David Vuurman
03/05/2020 — 10:15 am
The current board can renew the CEO contract in March for another two years. this option was written into her contract. The boards position on Petitions and surveys is that if a quorum is not met than the result is not valid, except if the petition and survey works in their favor.
Lloyd Sherman
03/05/2020 — 1:33 pm
Maybe Kirk Denger can explain to the class exactly how HE is going to remove the CEO on April 15. Individuals on the Board have one vote each so please inform the rest of us who may also be on the Board what the plan is.
Kirk Denger
03/05/2020 — 8:18 pm
Be happy to reply however the administrators of this site must be willing otherwise all of my efforts are captured and disposed of.
HSVP C
03/05/2020 — 8:46 pm
LOL Your personal attacks against us are most certainly disposed of, Kirk. We don’t pay for a website for you to come on here and abuse us.
Kirk Denger
03/06/2020 — 7:03 am
Truth is abuse and a personal attack? So you pay for a website in order to abuse others for your personal amusement.
HSVP C
03/06/2020 — 7:57 am
Kirk, truth is not abuse and personal attack. You are not telling the truth. Why keep up the charade of lies? Yes, many of your comments do not go through. This is no secret. You think you are exposing something and you are not. You twist things others and I say, pure and simple. Your lack of logic is not good. People have complained about your posts. I would not say this in a public forum, except you insist on twisting things. Do you know what a gaslighter is, Kirk? If you have a problem with the website, why do you keep coming back? Also, if you have a problem, the civil way to deal with it would be to write me a polite email and we might be able to work it out. But you insist on this grandstanding. Thank you and have a good day.
Kirk Denger
03/06/2020 — 7:14 pm
This is a public site, invitations for groveling at your feet is not a prerequisite for posting here.
Kirk Denger
03/07/2020 — 10:07 am
Your gaslighting technique is apparent with a long list, myself, Tommy, Will, etc.
Kirk Denger
03/06/2020 — 7:11 am
Lloyd, did you see the word “HE” or “I” in my comment? There is a saying “If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans”.
Mark
03/05/2020 — 7:28 pm
Petition signed and votes cast. Change is coming!
steve bylow
03/06/2020 — 8:10 am
Scott – I get the impression that you believe the CEO’s performance should be limited to a review of “Annual Goals”.
I’ve seen number performance review processes and while specific annual goals are an important performance indicator, the equally important indicator are leadership competencies related to judgment, leadership, teamwork, process improvement…
In other words, I believe making a decision to extend the CEO’s contract in mid-cycle based strictly on Annual Goals would be poor judgment.
Steve
Lloyd Sherman
03/06/2020 — 8:16 am
To Kirk Denger – I fail to understand what value personal vendettas and negative comments have on an information-sharing site, but each to their own, I guess.
I’m not interested in your attempt to discredit the owner’s of this site, I’m simply asking for transparency and removal of the secrecy that shrouds the Village.
You made an empirical statement: “Renewed or not makes no difference. April 15th 2020 the CEO will either resign or be removed.”
If you are going to make comments like that, you need to be able to back them up! Not in some secret meetings held by elected representatives of the people, but to the people who should all be pulling the ship in the same direction.
So, I ask you again, how do YOU plan to accomplish what you stated? Specifically. You will get no traction if it is your belief is that the previous boards have been in error. You will first have to figure out how you are going to change that and then get the support of three others on the Board to make whatever your concept is. So, in preparation for being on the Board, what is that plan?
Kirk Denger
03/12/2020 — 8:53 am
Two replies censored so far Lloyd.
Minn Daly
03/06/2020 — 12:16 pm
Loyd, is so correct in his analysis, It will take expert legal council to restructure the POA & deal with CEO contract & the mess left by legacy BOD. Members. We need the experience that LTD will bring to HSV BOD to work with existing members in order to get HSV back on track with financial issues as well as getting our infrastructure corrected. Stop the spending , get the POA out of the development business, eliminate CMP & governance committee. We Need the leadership of LTD to get our community back on track to productive action for property owners.. Minn Daly
ShirLee
03/07/2020 — 5:57 am
The little “ceo” needs to be reassigned to the crack sealing team.
Karen Daigle Lundberg
03/07/2020 — 8:10 am
Scott McCord, I notice that you have been challenged several times, both here and other sites, to give us your facts on what our “ceo” has accomplished for the property owners of this Association. I do know that one of her Enterprise Goals is to create harmony among the property owners (not the exact wording), and we all definitely know that she has not only not created harmony, but she has caused a war in this Village. However, all you ever do is answer with some smart aleck remark. You Lesley fans are always calling us out for facts, so it’s your turn. Either put up or shut up. Tell us what great things our “ceo” has accomplished for us in our favor? We are anxiously awaiting your response.
Karen Daigle Lundberg
03/07/2020 — 11:11 pm
Crickets from Scott McCord. You’ve had a lot to say, Scott. You have been challenged to put up or shut up. Are you waiting for Lesley to get settled back in from her trip so she can tell you how to respond, or are you only able to deliver smart aleck remarks with no proof to back you up. Come on, Scott, we want to hear from you. What is so wonderful that Lesley and our current BOD (exception DP) have done besides turn our love Village into a war zone? I am still awaiting your response.
Anonymous
03/07/2020 — 4:37 pm
The current BOD has a fiduciary responsibility to review the CEO’s performance during the past year based on the goals THEY set for her. They also are charged with the responsibility to determine if her contract should be renewed. For anyone who wants to sit on our Board to advocate the current BOD not perform their fiduciary responsibilities is very alarming. If the next BOD determines these responsibilities should be changed, they can address the issue in the first year of their tenure. That’s the responsible, intelligent way to address the issue. Also, for anyone to say the vote against the amendments to our Articles shows how the Village feels about our CEO is completely illogical.
Vicki Husted
03/07/2020 — 11:54 pm
To Anonymous03/07/2020 — 4:37 pm
You stated “For anyone who wants to sit on our Board to advocate the current BOD not perform their fiduciary responsibilities is very alarming.” No one has advocated for the current BOD to shirk their fiduciary duties. One candidate (at least one) DID request that they NOT RENEW the contract ahead of the current expiration date.
And 681 property owners have currently signed a petition requesting the same thing.
It’s my opinion that your last sentence is completely illogical.
Anonymous
03/08/2020 — 11:36 am
So, if you support that candidate, you are supporting the Board not perform their fiduciary responsibility. I completely disagree about my last sentence. It was illogical for people to vote against the Article amendments because they were against the CMP. Made no sense whatsoever.
Vicki Husted
03/08/2020 — 12:53 pm
Anonymous03/08/2020 — 11:36 am
As I stated previously, “no one has advocated for the current BOD to shirk their fiduciary duties.”
The duty is REVIEW the contract by March 31 each year, NOT TO EXTEND it. It was extended and amended to make it bullet-proof last year at the 11th hour.
We are requesting that they NOT try to do that again this year, but rather leave any contract AMENDING or EXTENDING to the incoming BOD members.
The Article Amendments would have REMOVED many of the barriers to implementing the CMP. The majority of property owners DID NOT WANT the CMP to be implemented, so they REJECTED the amendments. Sounds perfectly logical to me.
Bernard McIntyre
03/08/2020 — 3:19 pm
Scott,
Why do you think the Ballot closing has been moved back into March. Who do you think was behind that maneuver. Sure Sherman’s seat is open but that seat did not have to be filled immediately. This is just another attempt to extend Nally’s contract prior to a new board being seated.
Stephen Rust
03/08/2020 — 7:00 pm
Scott McCord, how many lines can you fill up repeating over and over 551 and 2%. Why didn’t you include the facts that in 2018, directors that campaigned on listening to the people were voted in and then found out they misrepresented themselves and do not have the favor of the villagers and are being replaced. How about the fact that in 2019 ten candidates ran for the board, all but one ran on change and listening to the people. The tenth that was pro CEO came in a distant last, even further down than me a relative newcomer. One of those elected, turned and your CEO was instrumental in getting the other dismissed. How about the fact that only one (yes only ONE) pro Lesley Nalley, pro CMP person is running and the other 4 are against the direction of the CEO and CMP. Where are those you claim are the majority. Why aren’t they running. They must not care to keep our CEO in power. How about the fact that the MAJORITY (yes majority) voted down the 13 amendments proposed by our old BOD and CEO. A clear indication that the majority (yes majority) are opposed to the direction the CEO and old BOD were taking.
Richard Brown
03/08/2020 — 10:11 pm
while 2% is not enough to fully represent the Village’s feelings toward the Board renewing or extending the CEO’s contract, most people in the village didn’t even know of the petitions existence and had they known the numbers would be much greater supporting the petition. the best way to determine the feeling of the village property owners would be to hold a vote on renewing or extending this absurd contract. But will the Board be willing to let the people decide? Review the CEO contract make a recommendation and let the newly elected board members vote to follow or not follow the recommendation
Rick Brown
I sure hope so
Rick Brown
Vicki Husted
03/08/2020 — 11:46 pm
Richard Brown03/08/2020 — 10:11 pm
Rick, you are absolutely right when you said “…most people in the village didn’t even know of the petitions existence and had they known the numbers would be much greater supporting the petition.”
Currently, 701 people have signed the petition, and the numbers are climbing daily.
Dan Brunson
03/09/2020 — 9:03 pm
We moved to the Village for our retirement home and all we have seen for five years is fighting and arguing between residents and board members and basically a political arena which should not be in a retirement community, enjoy life was our goal but we have had enough, at present we have our home up for sale to get out of this entire mess and live a retirement life
George Phillis
03/11/2020 — 1:41 pm
Scott McCord posted his summation that the online survey (if the CEO’s contract should be renewed) comprised 551 Villagers so he said “only 2 percent” of the property owners (voters) supported the non-renewal of the CEO’s contract. The way he arrived at that figure was to divide the total number of property owners (possible voters) into the total number of individuals who signed the petition to NOT renew the CEO’s contact. In the last BOD election in which Diana, Dick and Tormey (the turncoat) were elected to the BOD a total of 23,245 ballots were mailed to property owners (possible voters). So Mr. McCord divided 551 by 23,245 to arrive at his stated 2%. The fact is only 8235 ballots were returned……so 35% of property owners voted in the last BOD election. Also, in reality there were an additional 250 Villagers who signed the petition in person so there were actually 675 who agreed the CEO’s contract should not be renewed. Latest information is there are now 701 who agree the CEO’s contract should not be renewed. Bear in mind the petition required an individual, in many cases, to seek out the petition so they could sign it and some went so far as to go sign it in person. Ballots mailed to all property owners were an easy, no trouble task…..delivered to their residence, check mark the boxes(s) toss it into the mailbox. Despite not requiring much effort only 35% managed to actually vote. The 675 who made the effort speaks volumes about what the Villagers want. They do not want the CEO’s contract renewed. The CEO’s contract has another year on it so what’s the rush to renew it now….right before the election? The BOD on March 19, 2019 did the same thing….they shafted the property owners. Looks like the sitting BOD are going to pull the same stunt again save for one. Shame on them.
William Henry Fritz
03/17/2020 — 11:49 am
In 15 years there really has not been a C.E.O. that a minority of POA members approved of.If you care to notice disapproval wait until the present C.E.O. leaves and the replacement recognizes the need for increased assessments.That petition will get way more than 2% for firing a C.E.O.